Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Stallingrad

This hearing is extraordinary.

On one side facts.

The other side ignoring all the evidence, pushing the witch hunt narrative from above.

Extraordinary.

TomOnBoard

hotmail.com wrote: »

This is the point... killing people in mass bombing isn't unconstitutional and is usually supported by both parties in America. Depressing state of affairs.

Ah, FFS, wud ya ever get over yerself and yer Vive La Resistance naivete, and stop trying to deflect this thread onto yer own narrow, anarchic agenda that is clearly steeped in 1970/1980's CND type protestations that never understood the subtleties needed to be meaningful in a modern political environment. You sound like Jeremy Corbyn, and its quite clear how those whom he would have seen as his electorate judged him in the past week or so.

A historic event is taking place in the Houses of Congress as I write... and you're only interested in engaging in U.C.D. 1st year Literary and Debating Society type irrelevancies that owe more to 1969 than to 2019.

hotmail.com

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Ah, FFS, wud ya ever get over yerself and yer Vive La Resistance naivete, and stop trying to deflect this thread onto yer own narrow, anarchic agenda that is clearly steeped in 1970/1980's CND type protestations that never understood the subtleties needed to be meaningful in a modern political environment. You sound like Jeremy Corbyn, and its quite clear how those whom he would have seen as his electorate judged him in the past week or so.

A historic event is taking place in the Houses of Congress as I write... and you're only interested in engaging in U.C.D. 1st year Literary and Debating Society type irrelevancies that owe more to 1969 than to 2019.

Laughable that this is historic. When journalists say historic or extraordinary, it usually isn't.

But you can get hyped up and into this circus all you like.

hotmail.com

duploelabs wrote: »

Part of the articles of impeachment against Nixon was for illegal bombing of Cambodia no?

Not the final articles no afaik. It was raised initially in 1973 but both parties disagreed with impeachement on this basis.

prawnsambo

hotmail.com wrote: »

This is the point... killing people in mass bombing isn't unconstitutional and is usually supported by both parties in America. Depressing state of affairs.

I'm sorry that the law doesn't stretch to moral arguments, but that's probably because it would never get written down.

AbusesToilets

I find the nature of discourse in the House rather staid. This is a time that the more confrontational nature of parliamentary style debate would be preferable. Democrats are too lenient in challenging the outright lies being put forth by the Republicans.

JRant

hotmail.com wrote: »

Laughable that this is historic. When journalists say historic or extraordinary, it usually isn't.

But you can get hyped up and into this circus all you like.

If Trump wins next year and the GOP lose the Senate then expect Impeachment round 2 to kick off shortly thereafter. It'll be neither historic or extraordinary then. And when the Dems gets a sitting president, expect Impeachment to be brought forward again.
All this charade has done is make impeachment a go to option for a president you don't like, regardless of what side of the divide you sit on.

What's happening here is that the POTUS no longer has the right to set foreign policy matters, according to whoever controls the House.

There is also the extraordinary actions by the FBI that if left unchecked could be an unmitigated disaster for the American political system. In the hands of someone even slightly competent, which rules out Trump, this could be a real worry.

prawnsambo

JRant wrote: »

If Trump wins next year and the GOP lose the Senate then expect Impeachment round 2 to kick off shortly thereafter. It'll be neither historic or extraordinary then. And when the Dems gets a sitting president, expect Impeachment to be brought forward again.
All this charade has done is make impeachment a go to option for a president you don't like, regardless of what side of the divide you sit on.

What's happening here is that the POTUS no longer has the right to set foreign policy matters, according to whoever controls the House.

There is also the extraordinary actions by the FBI that if left unchecked could be an unmitigated disaster for the American political system. In the hands of someone even slightly competent, which rules out Trump, this could be a real worry.

Yeah. It's only happened three times so far, but let's get hysterical about it because it's our guy who stepped out of line.

uptherebels

JRant wrote: »

If Trump wins next year and the GOP lose the Senate then expect Impeachment round 2 to kick off shortly thereafter. It'll be neither historic or extraordinary then. And when the Dems gets a sitting president, expect Impeachment to be brought forward again.
All this charade has done is make impeachment a go to option for a president you don't like, regardless of what side of the divide you sit on.

What's happening here is that the POTUS no longer has the right to set foreign policy matters, according to whoever controls the House.

There is also the extraordinary actions by the FBI that if left unchecked could be an unmitigated disaster for the American political system. In the hands of someone even slightly competent, which rules out Trump, this could be a real worry.

Remind me, what foreign policy matters was Trump trying to set?

TomOnBoard

hotmail.com wrote: »

Laughable that this is historic. When journalists say historic or extraordinary, it usually isn't.

But you can get hyped up and into this circus all you like.

No, I don't rely on journalists or anyone else to tell me what is and is not historic... Well into my sixties, I loosely recall the Cuban Missile Crisis, have a strong memory of JFK's assassination, clearly remember the anti-Vietnam protests and riots, lived through Nixon and Watergate and that was all just in my non-political years...

Based on MY life experiences, this is phenomenal! It is Huge! And Trump WILL BECOME only the 3rd U.S. President to Be IMPEACHED by the House of Representatives which is the ONLY Body in U.S. governance that can do so. It is clear that it is not likely that, when the Impeachment Articles are presented to the Senate so that it can perform a fair trial under the Constitution, that Senate will rise to the occasion and perform within its oath. However, in 100 years time (that Being the time frame Trump cited as relevant in his un-hinged letter of yesterday to the Speaker of the House), ALL will see the breadth and depth of sheer fcuking lunacy that catalysed every action of this current crazy Administration.

So, these proceedings are grave and serious, and really your snarky characterizations speak more to your lack of understanding and knowledge than to any failure of others in terms of their heart-felt belief(s) and sense of morality!

hotmail.com

TomOnBoard wrote: »

No, I don't rely on journalists or anyone else to tell me what is and is not historic... Well into my sixties, I loosely recall the Cuban Missile Crisis, have a strong memory of JFK's assassination, clearly remember the anti-Vietnam protests and riots, lived through Nixon and Watergate and that was all just in my non-political years...

Based on MY life experiences, this is phenomenal! It is Huge! And Trump WILL BECOME only the 3rd U.S. President to Be IMPEACHED by the House of Representatives which is the ONLY Body in U.S. governance that can do so. It is clear that it is not likely that, when the Impeachment Articles are presented to the Senate so that it can perform a fair trial under the Constitution, that Senate will rise to the occasion and perform within its oath. However, in 100 years time (that Being the time frame Trump cited as relevant in his un-hinged letter of yesterday to the Speaker of the House), ALL will see the breadth and depth of sheer fcuking lunacy that catalysed every action of this current crazy Administration.

So, these proceedings are grave and serious, and really your snarky characterizations speak more to your lack of understanding and knowledge than to any failure of others in terms of their heart-felt belief(s) and sense of morality!

In 100 years time, this presidency will be forgotten.

There has been no radical change to US society and how the economy works since he came into office. Poor people are still poor and rich people are still rich.

Trump has not differed in any substantive way, in the way the economy is governed and shaped. This is what real
history remembers.

Itssoeasy

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I find the nature of discourse in the House rather staid. This is a time that the more confrontational nature of parliamentary style debate would be preferable. Democrats are too lenient in challenging the outright lies being put forth by the Republicans.

Well the way the chamber is set out doesn't lend itself to confrontational style. The House of Commons is set it the way it is to promote confrontation.

26000 Elephants

JRant wrote: »

What's happening here is that the POTUS no longer has the right to set foreign policy matters, according to whoever controls the House.

Are you watching a different impeachment debate from the rest of us? Is this seriously your take from this process?

So we disregard the lies, the smear campaigns, the corruption by his 'team'', the attempts to subvert the legal process by refusing to release documents and ordering staff to refuse cooperation.

But it's all about foreign policy.

Give me a break.

listermint

hotmail.com wrote: »

In 100 years time, this presidency will be forgotten.

There has been no radical change to US society and how the economy works since he came into office. Poor people are still poor and rich people are still rich.

Trump has not differed in any substantive way, in the way the economy is governed and shaped. This is what real
history remembers.

What' does a fake history look like ?

pixelburp

hotmail.com wrote: »

In 100 years time, this presidency will be forgotten.

There has been no radical change to US society and how the economy works since he came into office. Poor people are still poor and rich people are still rich.

Trump has not differed in any substantive way, in the way the economy is governed and shaped. This is what real
history remembers.

So don't discuss anything pertinent to the now, because in 100 years it might be irrelevant? You can't see how reductive and dismissive that point of view is, or indeed asks the question as to why you're even here? The politics forum is inherently built upon CURRENT affairs. Your personal barometer of political morality doesn't negate or erase the reality that an impeached president is extraordinary by dint of it not being ordinary or commonplace.

There is more to politics, and political discourse, than the economy. And TBH the only time the economy comes into historical eras are whe there are unsustainable booms, or catastrophic busts. So again, the extraordinary.

prawnsambo

hotmail.com wrote: »

In 100 years time, this presidency will be forgotten.

There has been no radical change to US society and how the economy works since he came into office. Poor people are still poor and rich people are still rich.

Trump has not differed in any substantive way, in the way the economy is governed and shaped. This is what real
history remembers.

Seriously? We still remember Woodrow Wilson, Roosevelt, Harry Truman and many of the presidents who came before them. And all the presidents who were impeached: Johnson, Nixon and Clinton. Johnson was impeached 150 years ago.

TomOnBoard

hotmail.com wrote: »

In 100 years time, this presidency will be forgotten.

There has been no radical change to US society and how the economy works since he came into office. Poor people are still poor and rich people are still rich.

Trump has not differed in any substantive way, in the way the economy is governed and shaped. This is what real
history remembers.

This is a totally idiotic assessment of the historical dimension in which these events are playing out..

In ANY 100 year period, ASOLUTELY NO Presidency is forgotten...

Every second of ALL current Presidencies become the 'buried treasure' that generations of future researchers will strive to uncover. Anyone who sees ANY Presidency as somehow forgettable is, frankly, ignorant of how historical scholars work, and doesn't offer any useful contribution to moving useful agendae forwards.

AbusesToilets

hotmail.com wrote: »

In 100 years time, this presidency will be forgotten.

There has been no radical change to US society and how the economy works since he came into office. Poor people are still poor and rich people are still rich.

Trump has not differed in any substantive way, in the way the economy is governed and shaped. This is what real
history remembers.

Have to disagree. The depth and breadth of corruption and deliberate misgovernance by this administration is unprecedented. Trump and the current Republicans are perhaps the greatest threat to the Republic since Jefferson Davis and the days of the Cival War. I say that with no hyperbole. The continued attacks and degradation of key political pillars that uphold the government, creeping influence of extreme religious organisations on daily life, attacks and denials of science, the deliberate pursuit of economical and social models that disenfranchise the poor in favour of business. On and On the abuses go.

Itssoeasy

The GOP can keep saying trump didn’t commit a crime but what evidence have they shown to prove he didn’t.

I wonder will Adam Schiff be involved in the senate trial next year. He’s certainly in control of the issues.

Itssoeasy

Doug Collins is a very dislikable person.

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

In 100 years time, this presidency will be forgotten.

There has been no radical change to US society and how the economy works since he came into office. Poor people are still poor and rich people are still rich.

Trump has not differed in any substantive way, in the way the economy is governed and shaped. This is what real
history remembers.

I don't think it will be.
Nixon's hasn't been and I don't think Kennedy's will be either, not just because of his assassination, but for the way he handled Vietnam, Cuba etc, nothing to do with the US economy in both cases.
True that certain holders of the office aren't remembered/talked about due to less interesting times, but Trump could be seen as an outcome of social policies that really kicked into gear with the Reagan terms, or at least you would have to hope that was the case, but going by the actions of the gop, things will just get worse.

Itssoeasy

The democrats have a good few ex service members in their ranks it seems.

Itssoeasy

DubInMeath wrote: »

I don't think it will be.
Nixon's hasn't been and I don't think Kennedy's will be either, not just because of his assassination, but for the way he handled Vietnam, Cuba etc, nothing to do with the US economy in both cases.
True that certain holders of the office aren't remembered/talked about due to less interesting times, but Trump could be seen as an outcome of social policies that really kicked into gear with the Reagan terms, or at least you would have to hope that was the case, but going by the actions of the gop, things will just get worse.

There are presidents from 150 years ago that I couldn’t tell you anything about. I can remember something more than a name from presidents from Eisenhower onwards.

JRant

uptherebels wrote: »

Remind me, what foreign policy matters was Trump trying to set?

Fairly obvious I would have thought, seeing as this whole affair is based around the Ukarine and the reason(s) for withholding funds.

prawnsambo

JRant wrote: »

Fairly obvious I would have thought, seeing as this whole affair is based around the Ukarine and the reason(s) for withholding funds.

You're getting confused. That was Russian foreign policy.

Itssoeasy

Ex CIA officer for the democrats. I see the GOP aren’t commenting on their character.

pixelburp

Trump will be remembered by dint of being a TV celebrity billionaire who ran a campaign on a whim, and ranted on social media throughout, picking open, loud fights with everyone. Not to mention cultivating a cult of personality that has arguably kept his base humming. Trump has not been a shrinking lily and the idea that he will fade into the background of history when he dies or steps down, is absurd. The man has pursued the limelight like a man demented.

The bookshelves will be full of memoirs, testimonials and autopsies over that time America voted a trust fund real estate blaggard as president. He's no Martin VanBuren...

JRant

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Are you watching a different impeachment debate from the rest of us? Is this seriously your take from this process?

So we disregard the lies, the smear campaigns, the corruption by his 'team'', the attempts to subvert the legal process by refusing to release documents and ordering staff to refuse cooperation.

But it's all about foreign policy.

Give me a break.

It's amazing how people can view the exact same footage and come away with completely different interpretation of it.
When you say "us" is that the editorial version, because I can assure not everyone sees it the same way as you.

Even people with a strong dislike for Trump have been saying the case put forward by the Dems in the House is lacking any real substance and seems to be far too rushed. And do you know what, I agree with that view.

I remember the Clinton impeachment very clearly. He was caught out lying under oath but I felt at the time it really didn't warrant impeachment but was being spearheaded by idiots on the GOP side. This case hasn't had a clear crime highlighted yet and is being spearheaded by idiots on the Dem side.

prawnsambo

JRant wrote: »

It's amazing how people can view the exact same footage and come away with completely different interpretation of it.
When you say "us" is that the editorial version, because I can assure not everyone sees it the same way as you.

Even people with a strong dislike for Trump have been saying the case put forward by the Dems in the House is lacking any real substance and seems to be far too rushed. And do you know what, I agree with that view.

I remember the Clinton impeachment very clearly. He was caught out lying under oath but I felt at the time it really didn't warrant impeachment but was being spearheaded by idiots on the GOP side. This case hasn't had a clear crime highlighted yet and is being spearheaded by idiots on the Dem side.

Yeah. It's hard to understand a case where the President tells another head of state to investigate their political rival or else no military aid package. Very confusing. Hard to understand. So many ways of looking at it. Amazing really.

Itssoeasy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

There are presidents from 150 years ago that I couldn’t tell you anything about. I can remember something more than a name from presidents from Eisenhower onwards.

Didn't include the obvious ones, like Lincoln, Roservelt, Taft, Willson, Hover, FDR and Truman but yes as I said plenty of holders of the office who little is remembered of at least in Ireland.
Ford of course for pardoning Nixon, with Carter having the worse run of luck, while pissing off different people by pardoning all Vietnam draft dodgers, while also being considered as opening the door for even more evangelical influence on politics